5 ms·

> They're wrong; full stop, no qualifications, no asterisk, no footnote, they are totally wrong on this and it is inevitable that their opinion will change. Th

> They're wrong; full stop, no qualifications, no asterisk, no footnote, they are totally wrong on this and it is inevitable that their opinion will change. This sentence takes the place of a reason. You could have offered a reason why you were right or a rational argument about the matter. Instead, you basically yelled "I'm right, they're wrong! I'm right, they're wrong!".

simon_o 6y ago
The GP made nothing more than a prediction about the future. Let's let the future determine whether he was right or wrong, no need for squabbling.
- kbenson 6y ago
  No, their first paragraph was a prediction. Their second was a assertion of fact without any evidence provided. They could have hedged that statement with "I think", or "in my opinion", but instead they went with "They're wrong; full stop, no qualifications, no asterisk, no footnote, they are totally wrong on this". Strong assertions require strong evidence, and not providing that evidence deserves to be called out. At least that's generally the consensus of the community here, as I see it.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    Every package manager that came before cargo/crates.io is not enough evidence for their assertion?
    - kbenson 6y ago
      Not if they don't actually mention it, no. It's not that evidence doesn't exist (it may or may not, and people may or may not agree that something is evidence), it's that none was provided. Without that, all you get is people yelling that they're right and someone else is wrong. Evidence lets people move the argument to useful territory.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Every package manager that came before cargo/crates.io is not enough evidence for their assertion? Since not every package manager that came before it is consistent with the assertion, no.
013a 6y ago
I am not arguing that this should happen; I am asserting that this will happen. The reasons why it should or shouldn't happen don't matter when it will happen. If you'd like to: Go back and re-read my comment, but re-read it in the mindframe that I'm against the change. It still holds. I didn't provide reasons why they should make the change, because I don't have a stance on whether they should or shouldn't. I am not qualified to say whether its the "Right" decision; just that Rust is on the wrong side of history with this one.
- wongarsu 6y ago
  Just because they will do it eventually doesn't mean they are wrong now. It's entirely possible that a flat namespace is reasonable decision for a small registry with few resources, but a bad decision for a well funded registry of an ecosystem that had a few more years to develop.
- dnautics 6y ago
  You have to admit the possibility that people will give up on rust before it happens (possibly because of this issue).

simon_o 6y ago

The GP made nothing more than a prediction about the future. Let's let the future determine whether he was right or wrong, no need for squabbling.

kbenson 6y ago
No, their first paragraph was a prediction. Their second was a assertion of fact without any evidence provided. They could have hedged that statement with "I think", or "in my opinion", but instead they went with "They're wrong; full stop, no qualifications, no asterisk, no footnote, they are totally wrong on this". Strong assertions require strong evidence, and not providing that evidence deserves to be called out. At least that's generally the consensus of the community here, as I see it.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Every package manager that came before cargo/crates.io is not enough evidence for their assertion?
  - kbenson 6y ago
    Not if they don't actually mention it, no. It's not that evidence doesn't exist (it may or may not, and people may or may not agree that something is evidence), it's that none was provided. Without that, all you get is people yelling that they're right and someone else is wrong. Evidence lets people move the argument to useful territory.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Every package manager that came before cargo/crates.io is not enough evidence for their assertion? Since not every package manager that came before it is consistent with the assertion, no.

013a 6y ago

I am not arguing that this should happen; I am asserting that this will happen. The reasons why it should or shouldn't happen don't matter when it will happen. If you'd like to: Go back and re-read my comment, but re-read it in the mindframe that I'm against the change. It still holds. I didn't provide reasons why they should make the change, because I don't have a stance on whether they should or shouldn't. I am not qualified to say whether its the "Right" decision; just that Rust is on the wrong side of history with this one.

wongarsu 6y ago
Just because they will do it eventually doesn't mean they are wrong now. It's entirely possible that a flat namespace is reasonable decision for a small registry with few resources, but a bad decision for a well funded registry of an ecosystem that had a few more years to develop.
dnautics 6y ago
You have to admit the possibility that people will give up on rust before it happens (possibly because of this issue).